Author
Topic: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors (Read 20969 times)

So the battle for 5d3 image quality will continue for some time. No matter for a while whether DXO results are fine or not - the numbers are presented to the public and caused some mess anyway. People in Canon probably are not happy looking at comparisons knowing the public look at them as well and buys equipment following those summaries. So what Canon will do next do defend it's positions?

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

lessmore

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

Ask the same question about the 5D Mark II (or any number of other cameras) and you may get the same answer.

Whether the camera does everything you need or not, Canon also has to live up to their customers' expectations. Those expectation are shaped partially by what the competition is doing.

How many people who own a Porsche have ever driven it at full speed around a corner? Does that mean that Porsche should make cars that go slower because for most people "that's fast enough"? Sure, they could. I wonder how sales would look if they did?

Logged

Astro

How many people who own a Porsche have ever driven it at full speed around a corner? Does that mean that Porsche should make cars that go slower because for most people "that's fast enough"? Sure, they could. I wonder how sales would look if they did?

exactly.... 95% of all porsche owners don´t need a porsche or could even use it´s full potential. it´s a status symbol.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

Currently I primarily use a 7D plus assorted telezooms for wildlife. Lack of reach at a reasonable quality is a limiting factor, but at the same time, I need to be ready to adapt to changing situations. Typically I'd go out with two bodies, one tele zoom, one wide zoom. I would love a high MP density FF body to use. 36MP full frame would be an acceptable minimum, although a Canon parallel would be 46MP (make the 18MP APS-C sensor bigger). Basically this would give me the same effective quality and reach as the 7D by cropping on the long end of zoom. When I don't need to crop, I can make use of the increased resolution. Also, by being a bigger sensor, the zoom just got extended 1.6x on the wide end. This would increase my flexibility significantly as I look towards longer focal length solutions. Yes, I'd trade off the fps for the increased resolution. For obvious reasons medium format is the wrong tool for this job.

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MPOn hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Increased resolution over most of the range, while maintaining the total reach, and more effective zoom range compared to 7D.

More and more and more superb reviews about the 5D mark iii are becoming available. Very very good user experiences also.

But these are all users who own the camera and use the camera.

I am really sick and tired over these DXO numbers, price to high , sensor not good , Canon is a shame, etc.

Buy the 5D or not. I am really interested in the portfolio of all the complainers , so that I can see why the 5D mark iii is not good enough and why Canon is a shame.

There is so much more to an improvement over the mark II then only the sensor and the BS DXO numbers.

+1 Amen!

We need not go any further than CR forum. People are quietly posting away great pictures (and video) while some are going out of their way in proving 5d3 (sensor etc) is crap. btw, if guys are churning out great photos with their 'crap' 5d3 then they must be brilliant photogs and they can do magic with ANY camera.There are issues with 5d3, agreed (like every other camera that came before it), but i am more than happy with mine! yeah baby!!

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MPOn hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MPOn hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Increased resolution over most of the range, while maintaining the total reach, and more effective zoom range compared to 7D.

So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.